NBCUniversal is facing a new lawsuit that could impact plans for a fourth park on the new land they acquired last year according the the Orlando Sentinel. The lawsuit comes from a Georgia developer, Stan Thomas, who used to control the land on Sand Lake Road before losing the property in a foreclosure.
The lawsuit claims there are “restrictions on the land that prevent a large-scale tourist attraction.” Universal has not commented on the litigation and they are unlikely  to do so.
The ironic part of the lawsuit is that apparently Universal was involved in placing the restrictions on the property back in 2000 to prevent any competing theme parks from building on the land. Thomas claims the restrictions were never lifted, which could cause the complications for Universal.
(h/t – Orlando Sentinel)
If he doesn’t own the land, control the land, or anything of the sort with the land, how can he sue them for what the land may be used for? MAY be used for! It isn’t even a proposed thing yet, is it?
Perhaps because the restrictions that Universal pushed for that land are what ultimately made it hard for him to make a profit from the land and ended up with it in foreclosure. If Universal swoops in and attempts to ignore the restrictions, he has a case where he stands to make money through a settlement with Universal. If I were a previous owner of the property, I’d be upset by this move by Universal as well.
Boy that’s a ton of supposition, .how about this, he lost it in a foreclosure therefore no one will get the opportunity to use it.
What if you owned a bar and I lobbied local officials to ban the sale of alcohol at that location, which caused you to go bankrupt – then I bought the same building and opened a bar?
You wouldn’t cry foul?
The way this article is written his complaint seems legit to me.
BRIAN you should be a script writer
The lawsuit essentially says that any land use restrictions stay with the land. They can’t be simply rescinded simply because the original entity that placed the restrictions on the land now owns it again.
From other articles I’ve read on this case, it seems to be very complicated.
Nah, truth is stranger than fiction…
Raymond, that makes more sense. I haven’t read anything more about the case, but the way the article is written makes it seem that a previous owner is suing a company that owns property that he has no legal stake in to try and tell them what they can and cannot do with their property. I could see if it was a loss of profit or corporate ethics case, but that isn’t what is presented here. Do we know that the previous developer lost profit because of actions by Universal? Was he planning to build a theme park? That’s the key question.
What a load of crap. I will do as I please with my property.
It would be interesting to see if a Florida court allows him standing as a third party beneficiary to the land use restriction. However, I would think that Universal would have set up a provision in the initial restriction/covenant, the ability to modify the restriction should they re-acquire the property in the future.